Delhi High Court overturns harassment acquittal, affirms no one can dictate a woman's clothing

In a judgment that squarely rebukes entrenched victim-blaming attitudes, the Delhi High Court has overturned a trial court's acquittal and convicted a man for sexually harassing a woman in 2013, ruling that a woman's choice of dress can never justify unlawful conduct against her. Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha also directed that the judgment be circulated to judicial officers across Delhi for training on protecting witness dignity during cross-examination.

A six-month ordeal that culminated in a complaint

The case stems from an incident on July 17, 2013, when the complainant, then aged about 17, alleged that her neighbour Sajid Ali had been stalking her for six months. Whenever she stepped out, he would follow her, touch her cheeks and make sexually coloured remarks. When she objected, he reportedly threatened her, saying he would show her "what her sharafat (honour) was."

A trial court in Tis Hazari acquitted Sajid Ali on August 22, 2014, citing several discrepancies — including the time of arrest, the place where the complaint was recorded, and the investigating officer's failure to probe a complaint filed by the accused and about fifty residents against the complainant. The State appealed.

A complaint that revealed no crime at all

The High Court examined the neighbours' complaint (Ext. PW2/DA), which described the complainant's "crime" as residing alone with her mother without a male member, wearing "objectionable" clothes that had an "adverse effect" on innocent boys, and filing false complaints. Justice Sudha said she was "totally at a loss" to find any violation of law by the complainant that warranted police action.

Rejecting the defence's submission that local customs must be respected, the judge held: "Neither religion nor local custom can be used to justify unlawful conduct or impose restrictions upon the personal choices of a woman."

'Deeply troubling and unacceptable mindset'

The judgment takes strong exception to the line of cross-examination pursued by the accused's counsel, which queried the complainant about her western clothing and the religious composition of the locality — questions the court found were intended to embarrass and humiliate, not test credibility.

"What a girl or woman chooses to wear is a matter of her personal choice. Neither her neighbours, nor society, nor the accused, nor counsel appearing in a court of law has any right to dictate her clothing. It is simply none of their concern. The suggestion that a woman wearing jeans may 'corrupt young boys' reflects a deeply troubling and unacceptable mindset," the court observed.

"The answer does not lie in controlling the clothes of girls and women. Parents and society must instead teach their children to control their conduct, respect personal boundaries and treat every human with dignity, whether at home or outside."

POCSO charge falls away for want of proof of age

While convicting the accused under Section 354A(1)(i) of the Indian Penal Code — which covers unwelcome physical contact and advances involving explicit sexual overtures — the court held that the prosecution had failed to establish that the complainant was below 18 years, a prerequisite for invoking the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

The birth certificate relied upon was registered 13 years after the complainant's birth. Sub-Registrar PW5 admitted that no entry corresponding to the certificate existed in the 1996 birth register, and no order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate sanctioning the delayed registration could be traced. "In such circumstances, it can only be held that the prosecution has failed to satisfactorily establish the age or minority of PW4," Justice Sudha said.

Even a woman of easy virtue is protected

The judgment also repelled the defence's attempt to paint the complainant as a woman of loose morals. Recalling settled law, the court held: "Even a woman of easy virtue is entitled to privacy and no one can invade her privacy as and when he likes... She is entitled to protect her person if there is an attempt to violate it against her wish. She is equally entitled to the protection of law." The complainant's testimony , the court noted, was consistent across her FIR , her statement under Section 164 CrPC and her deposition before the trial court, and had not been discredited.

A warning for the district judiciary

The court cautioned judicial officers that cross-examination , while a valuable right, is not "an unrestricted licence to insult, shame, intimidate or harass a witness." Judges must intervene decisively where questions are irrelevant, indecent, or intended to humiliate, and ensure that "court proceedings do not become a second site of trauma for the injured or witness."

Copies of the judgment were directed to be sent to all Principal District and Sessions Judges in Delhi for circulation, and to the Director (Academics) of the Delhi Judicial Academy for incorporation into training and sensitization programmes.

Sajid Ali was convicted under Section 354A(1)(i) IPC and directed to appear before the High Court on August 12, 2026 for the hearing on sentence.